Butte semi-weekly miner., 1887-04-02
THE ALIEN LAND Law.

II The ALIEN LAND 1AWs
During the last days OF the last Congress
the bill now known as the Alien Land Law
passed both houses OF Congress and was
signed by the President. Originally there
i were two bills One was introduced in the
Senate by Plumb. of Kansas, and the other
in the House by Payson, of Illinois. Both
aimed at the same object-that is
to prohibit the gobbling up OF
the public domain by foreign
corporations. Each bill passed the body
in which it was introduced. This fact
necessitated the appointment Of confer
enee committee to embody the essential
provisions of both measures into one bill.
This was done and the conference bill be-
came law.
| Under it's provisions foreign corporations
are prohibited from purchasing lands in
the United States and the Territories
thereof, and corporations in which over
one-tenth of the capital stock is held by
foreigners. are also debarred from acquir-
ing lands in the States and Territories. The
object of the measure. as explained by
Senator Plumb in his speech upon the bill,
Is to prevent foreign capitalists from &C.
quiring large landed interests in the coun-
try, especially in the growing West. The
idea that the bill would prohibit the in
vestment of foreign capital in mining prop
critics in the United States did not seem to
strike it's supporters, but Delegate Toole.
ever alive to the interests of his constit-
uents, after q careful examination of the
conclusion that under their strict in
depreciation, foreign corporations
would be shut out from acquiring mining
property in the United States. He pre-
sented this view of the matter to the rep
resentatives of the Territories and West
ern mining States, but those gentlemen,
either froa Indifference or from entertain.
themselves in defeating the measure. Mr..
Toole, however, fought the bill and entered
his protest against it in speech which he
delivered in the House July 31st last, as
shown by the Congressional Record OF the
next day. In his speech Mr.. Toole, while
offering no objections to the landed feature
of the bill, contended that it should not
apply to mineral lands and insisted that
an amendment should be added exempting
such lands from the operation of the bill.
He said:
every argument or suggestion dedueible
from the foregoing pertains to the agricul-
tural lands of the United States. 1t is de-
signed to prevent the concentration of es-
tates IN the hands of the few and the
wealthy, estates which by improvement
and the lapse of time are enhanced in val
ue. I contend that the same rule which
applies to this character OF estates andthe
reason for it's adoption and enforcement
does not apply to our mineral lands. In
the first place, it is difficult to acquire large
estates OF this character. by reason of the
fact that the Government will not part
with the title to any greater amount than
twenty acres to one individual, and the re-
suit is that such lands are never held in |
unnecessarily large quantities by individ-
ual or corporate purchasers. Secondly, |
this character OF land can never subserye |
any purpose of a home. 1t is barren and |
unproductive OF food products, and valua- |
bic only for the mineral it contains. |
submit that there is nothing in the argu-
ment of the committee which iustifies ex-
tending the provisions of this bill to the |
mineral lands. The best part of my life |
has been spent in a mineral country, and l |
know how fatal to the development and |
prosperity of the mineral regions the pass
age OF this bill will be. Territories which to-
day boast OF their inexhaustihle mineral |
resources, and furnish employment to hun
dreds of thousands of men, would be track
less, unproductive wastes if it had not !
been Tor foreigD capital. They have invest
ed, developed and reaped where we
would dare lot, and thus stimulated and
advanced our material prosperity. The
inhibition proposed is unwise, inexpedient,
and not justified by any past, present or
danger. The development and
exploration OF our mineral resources re-
Iuire an outlay OF vast sums Of money
sometimes a million dollars before dol
lar is received in return. These great en-
terprises are OF too great magnitude to en-
tice private capital, and home capital, al
ways timid. seeks less bazardous invest
ments. Our mine-owners, who have been
unable to prosecute their development
have uniformly turned to Europe where
capital has ever been willing
TO take some chance 8 in the purchase and
development of such properties. But why
8 it that such restrictive legislation rests
exclusively upon the Territories of the
United States? If this is good and neces-
'ary legislation, why is it not made appli-
able to the District OF Columbia? No
question OF State rights is involved, and
he same reasons which apply to the Terri
ories pertain with equal force to the Dis
rict of Columbia. If this measure be.
ome a law it ought to be perfected 80 as
% include the District of Columbia within
ts operation, and the following amend
nent should be added:
Provided, That this act shall not be
onstrued to apply to mineral lands"
Whatever may be the effect of the law
pom the mining interests of Montana,
Delegate Toole stands upon the record in
pposition to it. He did all he could to
efeat the measure, believing that it would
etard the development Of the great miner
resources Of the Territory. He is conf
ent, however, that should it be found to
lilitate against the placing of foreign cap
al in the mining properties of the coun-
~ the next Congress will amend the law
1 that respect. But it is hold by many
hat there is nothing in the law to prevent
be investment OF foreign capital in Ameri-
IN mining properties through the agency ,
American trustees.
CHANGE OF FRONT.